The Economy

Economic journalist David Leonhardt categorizes Hilary Clinton's approach to the econonomy as conservative in that she acts under the premise that "people respond rationally to financial incentives." Following traditional theories of ecpnomics, she proposes "new tax credits for savings, tuition, health care, elder care and renewable energy use."
Obama's plans, on the other hand, can be described as functioning through "behavioral economics." That is, his plan centers on the belief that what happens and what works on paper is not necessarily going to happen or work in real life. Writes Leonhardt:

"The problem with Mrs. Clinton's savings plan, according to the Obama view, is that many people won’t save even when they are offered subsidies to do so. After all, many workers who are eligible for 401(k) matching funds don’t take advantage of them now.

So Mr. Obama would instead require companies to deduct money automatically from their employees’ paychecks and place it in a savings account the employee owned. Employees could opt out of the program. But if they did nothing, they would end up saving money. It’s an idea that comes directly from academic research showing that savings rates have jumped when individual companies have adopted such plans...

Mr. Obama isn’t opposed to narrow tax credits, but his agenda isn’t organized around them. Instead, he has proposed an across-the-board $1,000 tax cut for every family in the bottom 90 percent or so of the income distribution. As he notes, the middle-class squeeze is caused by slow-growing wages and the rising cost of energy, education and health care. It’s not a narrow problem."

In short, Clinton's plans, while pretty enough on paper, just aren't as substantive and safe as Obama's. She's got the butter but not the bread.

Source:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/02/business/02leonhardt.html